No cross, no crown

by William Penn

CHAPTER X.

1. Another piece of nonconformity to the world, which is our simple and plain speech, thou for you.—2. Justified from the use of words and numbers, singular and plural.—3. It was, and is the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin speech, in schools and universities.—4. It is the language of all nations.—5. The original of the present customs defends our disuse of it.—6. If custom should prevail, in a sense it would be on our side.—7. It cannot be uncivil or improper, for God himself, the fathers, prophets, Christ, and his apostles used it.—8. An instance given in the case of Peter, in the palace of the high priest.—9. It is the practice of men to God in their prayers: the pride of man to expect better to himself.—10. Testimonies of several writers in vindication of us.—11. The Author's convictions; and his exhortation to his reader.

I. There is another piece of our nonconformity to the world, that renders us very clownish to the breeding of it, and that is, thou for you, and that without difference or respect to persons: a thing that to some looks so rude it cannot well go down without derision or wrath. But as we have the same original reason for declining this, as the foregoing customs, so I shall add, what to me looks reasonable in our defence; though it is very probable height of mind, in some of those that blame us, will very hardly allow them to believe that the word reasonable is reconcileable with so silly a practice as this is esteemed.

II. Words of themselves are but as so many marks set and employed for necessary and intelligible mediums, or means, whereby men may understandingly express their minds and conceptions to each other: from whence comes conversation. Now, though the world be divided into many nations, each of which, for the most part, has a peculiar language, speech, or dialect, yet have they ever concurred in the same numbers and persons, as much of the ground of right speech. For instance; I love, thou lovest, he loveth, are of singular number, importing but one whether in the first, second, or third person: also we love, ye love, they love, are of the plural number, because in each is implied more than one. Which undeniable grammatical rule, might be enough to satisfy any, that have not forgotten their accidence, that we are not beside reason in our practice. For if thou lovest, be singular, and you love, be plural; and if thou lovest, signifies but one; and you love, many; is it not as proper to say, thou lovest, to ten men, as to say, you love, to one man? Or, why not, I love, for we love; and we love, instead of I love? Doubtless it is the same, though most improper, and in speech ridiculous.

III. Our next reason is; if it be improper or uncivil speech, as termed by this vain age, how comes it that the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman authors, used in schools and universities, have no other? Why should they not be a rule in that, as well as other things? And why, I pray then, are we so ridiculous for being thus far grammatical? Is it reasonable that children should be whipped at school for putting you for thou, as having made false Latin; and yet that we must be, though not whipped, reproached, and often abused, when we use the contrary propriety of speech?

IV. But in the third place, it is neither improper nor uncivil, but much otherwise; because it is used in all languages, speeches, and dialects, and that through all ages. This is very plain: as for example, it was God's language when he first spake to Adam, viz. Hebrew: also it is the Assyrian, Chaldean, Grecian and Latin speech. And now among the Turks, Tartars, Muscovites, Indians, Persians, Italians, Spaniards, French, Dutch, Germans, Polonians, Swedes, Danes, Irish, Scotch, Welsh, as well as English there is a distinction preserved, and the word thou is not lost in the word which goes for you. And though some of the modern tongues have done as we do, yet upon the same error. But by this it is plain, that thou is no upstart, nor yet improper, but the only proper word to be used in all languages to a single person; because otherwise all sentences, speeches, and discourses may be very ambiguous, uncertain, and equivocal. If a jury pronounce a verdict or a judge a sentence, three being at the bar, upon three occasions, very differently culpable, and should say, You are here guilty and to die; or innocent, and discharged: who knows who is guilty or innocent? May be but one, perhaps two; or it may be, all three: therefore our indictments run in the singular number, as Hold up thy hand: thou art indicted by the name of, &c., for that thou, not having the fear of God, &c. And it holds the same in all conversation. Nor can this be avoided but by many unnecessary circumlocutions. And as the preventing of such length and obscurity was doubtless the first reason for the distinction, so cannot that be justly disused till the reason be first removed; which can never be whilst two are in the world.

V. But this is not all; it was first ascribed in way of flattery to proud popes and emperors, imitating the heathens' vain homage to their gods; thereby ascribing a plural honour to a single person: as if one pope had been made up of many gods, and one emperor of many men; for which reason, you only to be used to many, became first spoken to one. It seems the word thou looked like too lean and thin a respect; and therefore, some bigger than they should be, would have a style suitable to their own ambition: a ground we cannot build our practice on; for what began it only loves it still. But supposing you to be proper to a prince, it will not follow it is to a common person. For his edict runs, We will and require, because, perhaps, in conjunction with his council: and therefore you to a private person is an abuse of the word. But as pride first gave it birth, so hath she only promoted it. Monsieur, sir, and madam, were originally names given to none but the king, his brother, and their wives, both in France and England; yet now the ploughman in France is called monsieur, and his wife madame: and men of ordinary trades in England, sir, and their wives, dame; which is the legal title of a lady, or else mistress, which is the same with madame in French. So prevalent hath pride and flattery been in all ages, the one to give and the other to receive respects, as they term it.

VI. But some will tell us, custom should rule us; and that is against us. But it is easily answered, and more truly, that though in things reasonable or indifferent, custom is obliging or harmless, yet in things unreasonable or unlawful, she has no authority. For custom can no more change numbers than genders, nor yoke one and you together, than make a man into a woman, or one into a thousand. But if custom be to conclude us, it is for us; for as custom is nothing more than ancient usage, I appeal to the practice of mankind, from the beginning of the world, through all nations, against the novelty of this confusion, viz. you to one person. Let custom, which is ancient practice and fact, issue this question. Mistake me not: I know words are nothing, but as men give them a value or force by use; but then, if you will discharge thou, and that you must succeed in its place, let us have a distinguishing word instead of you to be used in speech to many: but to use the same word for one and many, when there are two, and that only to please a proud and haughty humour in man, is not reasonable in our sense: which we hope is Christian, though not modish.

VII. But if thou to a single person be improper or uncivil, God himself, all the holy fathers and prophets, Christ Jesus, and his apostles, the primitive saints, all languages throughout the world, and our own law proceedings are guilty; which, with submission, were great presumption to imagine. Besides, we all know it is familiar with most of our authors to preface their discourses to the reader in the same language of thee and thou: as, Reader, thou art desired, &c. Or, Reader, this is written to inform thee of the occasion, &c. And it cannot be denied, that the most famous poems, dedicated to love or majesty, are written in this style. Read of each in Chaucer, Spenser, Waller, Cowley, Dryden, &c. Why then should it be so homely, ill-bred, and insufferable in us? This, I conceive, can never be answered.

VIII. I doubt not at all that something altogether as singular attended the speech of Christ and his disciples: for I remember it was urged upon Peter in the high priest's palace, as a proof of his belonging to Jesus, when he denied his Lord: "Surely," said they, "thou art also one of them: for thy speech bewrayeth thee." (Matt. xxvi. 73.) They had guessed by his looks but just before that he had been with Jesus; but when they discoursed with him, his language put them all out of doubt: surely then he was one of them, and he had been with Jesus. Something it was he had learned in his company that was odd and observable; to be sure, not of the world's behaviour. Without question, the garb, gait, and speech of his followers differed, as well as his doctrine, from the world; for it was a part of his doctrine it should be so. It is easy to believe they were more plain, grave, and precise, which is more credible from the way which poor, confident, fearful Peter took to disguise the business; for he fell to cursing and swearing—a sad shift. But he thought that the likeliest way to remove the suspicion, that was most unlike Christ. And the policy took; for it silenced their objections, and Peter was as orthodox as they. But though they found him not out, the cock's crow did; which made Peter remember his dear suffering Lord's words: and he went forth, and wept bitterly; that he had denied his Master, who was then delivered up to die for him.